TERRITORIAL EXPANSION 

AND THE 

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION 

BY 

THOMAS B. MARSTON 



1 



A PAPER READ BEFORE THE LAW 
CLUB, CHICAGO. OCTOBER 29, 1698. 



PUBLISHED BY THE CLUB FOR ITS 
MEMBERS 



rr"' ti I o 



M^T 




-^ 5'Cf ^•'.sct.MV'C. 



COMPLIMENTS OF THE LAW CLUB OF CHICAGO 



TERRITORIAL EXPANSION AND THE 
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 



Just one huiulred 3'eais ago tlie United States of America 
sent to Paris a Commission, composed of Elbridge Gerry, 
John Marshall and Charles C. Pinckney, to negotiate a treaty 
with France, settling the differences then existing between 
the two countries. These gentlemen represented a new-born 
Union of thirteen states, with a territory of 800,000 square 
miles, and a population of 5,000,000 people — a nation 
scarcel}^ recognized among the Powers of Europe, which 
Tally rand did not hesitate to insult, by suggesting to its 
Commission that the prerequisite to an audience was the 
preliminary payment of a so-called "gratification " to him- 
self. 

hi 1898, at the present moment, there is sitting in Paris 
another Commission — representatives of that same Nation, 
now a Union of forty-five States and five Territories, having 
an area of 3,595,000 square miles and a population of 
72,000,000 people, and now recognized by every People as 
one of the great nations of the world, whose friendship 
and good-will is desired by every European Power. 

Whence came tliis great increase in territory and popu- 
lation and power? How was the number of States increased 
from thirteen to forty-five, and how did the great States of 
the Mississippi Valley and the Pacific Slope become part of 
the Union? Will not a little reflection and looking back- 
ward into the history of our [)ast, a consideration of the 



discussions on questions of constitutional power, aroused by 
each succeeding acquisition, answer most of the objections 
and remove man}- of the grounds of hesitation which we hear 
urged on every side against territorial expansion to-day? 

A stranger to our institutions and history, reading the 
article of Senator Proctor in the September number of the 
Forum, favoring expansion, or the article of Ex-Secretary 
John G. Carlisle i)ubHshed in Harper's Montldy for October, 
opposing territorial acquisition, might fairly conclude that 
this was a new question to the Nation, fraught with vast 
dangers to the very existence of the Republic, calling for 
new constructions of the Federal Constitution and wide 
departures from our civic institutions — a veritable "parting 
of the ways," as it has been called. Histor3% however, 
reveals that nearly, if not quite, all the questions that 
can arise under the Federal Constitution, incident to terri- 
torial expansion, have been thoughtfully considered and 
settled; that the strains and wrenches which are predicted 
for the sinews of the Republic have been already experienced, 
and the body politic has gained strength and vitality from 
the exercise. 

Among the objections urged by those opposed to territorial 
expansion are, first, that there is no provision in our Consti- 
tution for a Colonial System; second, that such a system is 
contrary to and inconsistent with our institutions; third, 
that under our form of government we have, and can make, 
no adequate provision for the vast number of Porto Ricans, 
Hawaiians, Kanakas, Filipinos, Japanese, Chinese, and 
other Asiatics — inhabitants of the lands proposed to be ac- 
quired, consistent with their needs and welfare; and that to 
corporate these people into the Nation by the proposed 
treaties is a menace to our prosperity, peace and happiness. 



I. Of the power of the Utiited States to acquire territory 
under the Constitution, there can now be no doubt. The 
power of any sovereignty to acquire territory pertains to, 
and is an incident of, the power to declare war and make 
treaties. As a legitimate means of prosecuting war, the 
propert}' and territory of a belligerent may be seized and 
confiscated at the will of the captor; and " when war exists, 
the government possesses all the extreme powers which any 
sovereignty can wield, and among these is the power to 
acquire territory either by conquest or treaty." 

Moreover, the Constitution in terras contemplates the 
acquisition of territory. Section 3 of Article IV provides 
that " new States may be admitted by Congress into this 
Union." And here let it be noted that this provision is 
without restriction as to numb(^r, size or location. 

The separate States could not acquire territory ; and if the 
Nation, acting through Congress, could not — then the prog- 
ress of civil liberty was thereby limited to the infant dimen- 
sions of the original States, and our Nation, full of the 
vigor and vitalitN^ and growth of a young and active 
people, must have been paralyzed and have withered away 
for the want of the power of expansion. 

Mr. Jefferson, the Father of the Democracy and the Patron 
Saint of the strict-constructionists, thought at the time of 
the Louisiana Purchase that he was exercising a power not 
conferred by the Constitution; but it was in his adminis- 
tration that the treaty with France was ratified — a treaty 
negotiated by him, and which gave to the country a terri- 
tory of 1,170,000 square miles, which has since become seven 
States of the Union, viz.: Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, 
Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas and Nebraska, and originally 
Texas. 



If, now, the Nation has power to acquire territory, it 
must also have the power to govern the territory acquired. 
That right is vested in Congress by Section 3 of Article IV 
above referred to, which provides that "The Congress shall 
have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and 
regulations respecting the territory or other property 
belonging to the United States." This power is clearly 
exclusive and universal. 

The right of Congress to legislate regarding such 
territory is absolute and unlimited, except so far as 
it may be affected by the Constitution and the stipula- 
tions of the treaty of cession. It has the power to establish 
local courts and local government; to repeal and render 
void any territorial laws which are inconsistent with 
the Organic Acts under which the local government is so 
established; to make laws for the taxation of such territory, 
and the collection of revenue therefrom; and, furthermore, 
has the exclusive right to say when and how, and under 
what terms and restrictions, such territory shall be 
admitted into the Union. 

This doctrine has not only been established by decisions 
of the Supreme Court of the United States, but it has been 
maintained after many a hard fought struggle in the arena 
of politics, and exhaustive discussions by America's greatest 
men in the Senate Chamber and on the floor of the House. 
Benton, Clay, Calhoun, Webster, Douglas and Lincoln, all 
gave it their deepest thought and most earnest consideration . 
What was the controversy which was temporarily settled 
by tlie Missouri Compromise? What necessitated the 
passage of the Kansas and Nebraska Bill? What were 
the main points of discussion by Mr. Lincoln and Senator 
Douglas in their celebrated joint debates preceding the 
election of 1860? In that memorable campaign it was 



contended by the defeated party, represented by Mr. 
Douglas, that Congress had no right to legislate on the 
domestic concerns of the people of the Territories; that the 
people had the right to determine for themselves whether 
slavery should exist within their limits, and that at the 
proper time they should be admitted to the Union with a 
constitution of their own adoption, with or without slavery 
as they chose. Mr. Lincoln contended otherwise, claiming 
that the power and control of Congress over the Territories 
was absolute, and it alone could say upon what terms and 
under what form of constitution any Territory should be- 
come a State. The question was fully decided by the Civil 
War, and was never afterward raised, until the prosecu- 
tions in Utah of the polygani}-^ cases under the Edmunds 
Bill. In those cases the power of Congress to exercise 
absolute control in the Territories was reaffirmed by the 
Supreme Court. 

Such being the powers of Congress, the question is pro- 
pounded — Is a Colonial System possible under the Federal 
Constitution? Like the true Yankee, we answer the ques- 
tion by asking another. What kind of a Colonial System 
is referred to? If is meant such a system of colonies as 
Spain has maintained in America and in Asiatic waters for 
the past three centuries, dependencies held merely as a 
source of revenue to the Home Government — the answer 
must be in the negative. If the question means a system 
of charter colonies, such as Massachusetts, Rhode Island 
and Connecticut were, prior to the Revolution, or of pro- 
prietary colonies, as were Maryland, Pennsylvania and 
Delaware — the answer is still in the negative. But if is 
meant provincial establishments, similar to the colonies of 
New York, New Hampshire and Virginia in those days, or 
Canada, the Australian Colonies and New Zealand of the 



C) 

present day — the answer is that such colonies differ in hut 
few particulars from our own Territories, already organized 
by Congress under the Federal Constitution, and that with 
a few modifications, easily possible, to conform to certain 
restrictions imposed by limitations in our Constitution, such 
colonies can be established. 

The fact is that our territorial system is already quite sim- 
ilar to the colonial system of England, Congress having 
very much the same power in this regard as the British 
Parliament. In the colonial system the Governor General 
is appointed by the Crown; in the territorial system, by the 
President. The duties of such officer in each system are 
very much the same, as are also their powers. The Terri- 
tories are taxed by a Government in whose legislature they 
are not represented, a fact which, though entirely incon- 
sistent with the democratic principle of " no taxation with- 
out representation," has never been a cause of complaint 
from the Territories. Congress may without restriction 
overrule the statutes passed by any Territorial legislature — 
as the British Parliament may overrule those of any of the 
Queen's self-governing colonies. But, as said by Mr. Bryce 
in his American Com n:ion wealth: "Self-government is 
practically enjoyed in the Territories despite the supreme 
authority of Congress, just as it is enjoyed by Canada and 
the Australian Colonies of Great Britain, despite the legal 
right of the British Parliament to legislate for every part 
of the Queen's dominions." 

In some particulars, however, the two systems differ, viz.: 
Every Territory established, under the spirit of the Federal 
Constitution, looks forward to at some period becoming a 
com plete State — which is not the prospect of a British colony . 

Again, a British colony may, under permission either spe- 
cially granted or tacitly tolerated, impose its own duties, 



imposts and excises, or Parliament may establisli for it a 
peculiar system of revenue laws most suitable to its partic- 
ular needs; whereas Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitu- 
tion requires that " all duties, imposts and excises shall be 
uniform throughout the United States." The Federal Su- 
preme Court has held that the words " United States" are 
here used to designate the whole domain of the American 
people, including the Territories and the District of Colum- 
bia, and that under the principles of the Constitution uni- 
formity in the imposition of imposts, duties and excises 
must be observed in the Territories as well as in the 
States. So, also, any direct tax levied by Congress, if levied 
in the Territories, must be levied by the rule of apportion- 
ment as is constitutionally required in the case of the 
States. 

The suggestion that this very rule of uniformity would 
work a hardship against the proposed new Territories — in 
that wliat are reasonable imposts, duties and excises for the 
States, would be burdensome to them, is superficial. All 
such taxes operate with more hardship on certain parts of 
the country than on others, because of the divers needs 
and varying products of the different sections of our 
country; but unquestionably the rule of uniformit}^ is the 
best, and operates with the least hardship on different local- 
ities. The new Territories could hardly complain, if subject 
to the same internal revenue laws and direct taxes as are 
imposed in every portion of the States and older 
Territories. 

Subject to these few restrictions imposed by the Federal 
Constitution, however, the power of Congress is absolute. 
If it should be deemed advisable by Congress to create a 
Colonial or Territorial office — a Department of Territories 
or Colonies, it has full power under the Constitution to do 



so; to create a Secretary of the Colonies, or any other office, 
and make all necessary and needful rules and regulations 
for their wise and economic administration. 

II. But it is urged that a colonial or territorial system is 
inconsistent with our Republican institutions founded on 
the fundamental idea of self-government. 

It has been well said by that eminent constitutional 
writer. Judge Cooley, that " it can not be contended that any 
territory which by purchase, cession or conquest should at 
any time come under the control of the United States, should 
be permanently held in a territorial condition by the cen- 
tral government, under its own imperial rule." While 
this may be admitted, still it is not inconsistent with our 
institutions to hold such territory temporarily as a 
Territory, under the central government. 

It is entirely consistent with our ideas of self-government, 
and in furtherance of the development of our institutions 
and the extension of civil liberty, both to acquire and 
to hold such territory, with the assured right to its inhabit- 
ants to create and establish State institutions and become a 
State as soon as the nature of the population and local con- 
ditions are suitable. 

Under the Federal Constitution, the people in the ac- 
quired territory are guaranteed all the benefits of the con- 
stitutional principles protecting life, liberty and property. 
We hold out, also, to them the right to come into the Union 
under a State Constitution, which must, however, be ac- 
ceptable to the Union and consistent with our principles of 
self-government, so soon as, in the opinion of Congress, the 
local conditions are such as to guarantee the permanence 
and endurance of the local government of the State so 
created. 

How long it may be before these local conditions become^ 



9 

satisfactory, no one can say. It may be ten years, 
or fifty years, or one hundred years before Porto Rico, 
Hawaii or the Philippines have local institutions and social 
conditions justifying their admission into the Union. The 
rich and prosperous States of Kansas, Nebraska and Min- 
nesota were held as Territories for more than fifty years, 
while North and South Dakota, Idaho, Montana and Wyo- 
ming remained under territorial organization for nearly 
ninety years before statehood was granted to them. New 
Mexico and Arizona are still Territories, although ceded to 
the United States fifty years ago. Their population is suffi- 
cient, yet they have not been admitted because — owing to the 
predominance of the Spanish race — their local conditions are 
not such as to warrant it. Under our institutions and gov- 
ernment they have, however, made vast strides in civiliza- 
tion and progress, surpassing their Mexican neighbors 
across the border, who are only just beginning, under the 
powerful rule of Porforio Diaz, to realize the blessings of a 
stable government. Alaska, a purchase of thirty years ago, 
is as yet a District merely, without even a Territorial legis- 
lature, and destined to remain so for many years to come. 
What may be accomplished, however, with native popula- 
tion even, under good government, is shown by the results 
of English rule in New Zealand in the last sixty years. 

And here let us pause to note a peculiar circumstance in 
the development of this great Union. Both the Louisiana 
purchase and the territory acquired from Mexico, were in a 
large measure accidental expansions. 

When Mr. Monroe and Mr. Livingstone were sent to 
France, their instructions were to negotiate the purchase 
of New Orleans and the territory surrounding the mouth of 
the Mississippi River for not over $3,000,000. To the sur- 
prise of President Jefierson, they returned a treatv for the 



10 

acquisition of the whole of the Province of Louisiana for 
$15,000,000. There was great hesitation in accepting the 
treaty, it being at the time considered as involving a great 
acquisition of useless territory. That territory contained at 
the time only 30,000 civilized inhabitants, and a horde of 
unknown savage tribes. 

Mr. Trist, who negotiated the treaty with Mexico, had 
been recalled from Mexico, but — disregarding his recall — 
remained and negotiated and signed the treaty. Although 
it was negotiated by one not in authority, yet the President 
and Senate adopted and ratified it; not, however, without 
bitter opposition, for although it was a Treaty of Peace, it 
was ratified by a majority of only tiiree in the Senate. 

It is also noteworthy that at the time of each acquisition, 
the United States was in no need of additional territory. It 
already possessed vast areas which were but very sparsely 
settled at the time of each treaty. When the Louisiana 
Purchase was made, Ohio had just been admitted to the 
Union, while Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin 
were a vast wilderness inhabited only by Indians and 
pioneers. Yet both acquisitions have been the direct cause 
of enormous growth and prosperit}' to the Nation. 

III. Let us now consider whether it is a menace to our 
peace and prosperity to corporate into the Nation these 
proposed new territories, containing peoples unacquainted 
with the Anglo-Saxon principles of self-government, and 
not educated to a life of independent action. 

In the first place, be it remembered that these people do 
not, by annexation, become entitled as of right to partici- 
pate in political authority. It is the inherent right of every 
independent nation to determine for itself, and according to 
its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall 



11 

be entitled to citizenship. This we, as a nation, liavo 
already done. The Federal Constitution grants to Con- 
gress the right to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. 
Under this power the control of Congress over the question 
of the citizenship of foreign-born inhabitants is absolute and 
exclusive; and until two years after the adoption of the 14th 
Amendment, Congress never recognized the naturalization 
of any but free white persons. The political rights which 
these inhabitants of ceded territory will have as a matter of 
right will be only those retained to them by their former 
sovereign in the treaty of cession. Subject to these restric- 
tions, their right to participate in political authority is 
exclusively under the control of Congress. 

Let us recur again to history and precedent to ascertain 
what rights have been heretofore reserved by the former 
sovereign to the inhabitant of the ceded territory, under 
the treaty by which it was acquired. 

The treaty with Spain, under and by virtue of which the 
Floridas were acquired, contained this provision regarding 
citizenship: 

"Article 4. The inhabitants of the territories which his Catholic 
Majesty cedes to the United States by this treaty, shall be incorporated 
into the Union of the United States as soon as may he consistent with the 
principles of the Federal Constitution, and admitted to the enjoyment of 
all the privileges, rights and immunities of citizens of the United States." 

Under this treaty it was held by our Federal Supreme 
Court that the inhabitants did not become entitled to 
f)articipate in political power nor share in the government, 
until Florida became a State. 

The treaty with France of April 30, 1803, by which 
Louisiana was ceded to the United States, contained this 
provision : 



12 

" Article 3. The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated 
in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible according 
to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the 
rigfhfs, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States, and in 
the meantime they shall be maintained and protected in the full enjoyment 
of their liberty, property and the religion which they profess." 

Article 8 of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of February 
2, 1848, provided that Mexicans within the territory of 
Mexico ceded to the United States, might elect whether they 
would remain Mexicans or become citizens of the United 
States, but they must make that election within one year. 

Article 9 provided that 

" The Mexicans who, in territory aforesaid, shall not preserve the 
character of citizens of the Mexican republic, conformably with what is 
stipulated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated into the Union of 
the United States, and be admitted at the proper time {to he judged of hy 
the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of 
citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution; 
and in the meantime shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoy- 
ment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their 
religion without restriction." 

The treaty with Russia, dated AVashington, March 30, 
1867, by which Alaska and the Aleutian Islands were 
acquired, provided: 

"Articles. The inhabitants of the ceded territory, according to their 
choice, reserving their natural allegiance, may return to Russia within three 
years; but if they prefer to remain in the ceded territory, they, WJiV/i the 
excejytion of the uncivilized native tribes, shall be admitted to the enjoy- 
ment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United 
States, and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their 
liberty, property and religion. 

The uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws and regulations as 
the United States may from time to time adoi^t in regard to aboriginal 
tribes of that country.'" 

It is to be observed that in all of our treaties except the 



13 

one with Russia, we have been careful to reserve to Congress 
the right to say when, liow and under what circumstances 
these additions to our population shall receive political 
power, and in the Alaskan treaty even the constitutional 
rights were not given to the " uncivilized native tribes," but 
they were to be subject to the same laws as pertained to the 
aboriginal Indians of the United States. 

The political status of the Indian is and always has been 
peculiar. He is not a natural born citizen, although born 
within the territory of the United States, and although under 
both the common law and our Constitution every child born 
within the limits of the country, even though of alien par- 
ents — except the child of a diplomatic agent or of an alien 
enemy — is a citizen. But our Constitution as originally 
framed contemplated the Indian as a subject of an alien 
tribe residing within our borders, and such the Federal 
Courts have decided he must ever be until duly naturalized 
under a Congressional law. The decision was based on the 
well recognized principle that, being an alien, he can not 
become a citizen without the consent of the Nation expressed 
through Congress. Still Congress has passed special laws 
permitting the naturalization of the Indian. 

Is it not possible to provide, in the treaty of cession of any 
territory which we may now acquire, that in the case of 
uncivilized native tribes occupying such territory, they shall 
be subject to laws similar to those established for the abo- 
riginal tribes of our own country ? 

Our best information is to the effect that the native tribes 
of the Philippines, outside of the settled portion of Luzon 
and a small portion of Panay and Cebu, acknowledge 
no allegiance to Spain, and never have. They are really 
independent tribes, having their own rudimentary tribal 



14 

governments. This being so, Spain has no sovereignty- 
over them to cede to us by treaty, and our relations with 
these tribes — their rights and privileges — can be fixed here- 
after by treaties with them as was done with the Indians of 
our own land. 

Now what are the constitutional rights which the inhab- 
itants of ceded territory do obtain by annexation? Not the 
right of suffrage; but the right of trial by jury, the right to 
the writ of habeas corpus, freedom of speech, freedom of the 
press, freedom of conscience in matters of religion, immu- 
nity from unreasonable seizure and search, the right to 
acquire and hold property free from molestation, except by 
due process of law, and other such personal rights and 
privileges familiar to us all from our early education. 

Can these privileges not be accorded to the people it is pro- 
posed to acquire without danger to the peace and prosperity 
of the Republic? How could the extension of these rights to 
the population of Hawaii, for instance, affect this Nation? 
The whole population of these Islands is only 109,000, or 
about the same number as are contained in the city of 
Indianapolis. Of these 23,000 are Americans, Germans, 
English and Portugese, who certainly make good citizens; 
24,000 are Japanese, and 21,600 Chinese, almost all of whom 
retain the citizenship of their native lands. This leaves but 
31,000 Kanakas, and 8,500 half-whites, a mere handful of 
people who are dying off as rapidly as our Red Men, and 
will soon cease to be an element in the Islands at all. The 
population of the Philippines is variously estimated at from 
seven to thirteen millions, but it must be remembered that 
portions of the Island of Luzon alone has been reduced to 
possession by Spain. All the other Islands are occupied by 
uncivilized native tribes, who have no civil status under 



15 

the Spanish law, and to whom, therefore, Spain can not 
request us to grant citizenship or constitutional rights. 

But it is suggested that Hawaii and the Philippines already 
contain a vast number of Japanese and Chinese who, by the 
annexation of these islands, might acquire the right to be- 
come citizens under our naturalization laws, and having 
become citizens, have the right to migrate to other States. 

No such danger is possible. Citizenship, unless expressly 
reserved by the treaty of cession, can be acquired 
in but two ways: by birth within the United States or by 
becoming naturalized under the laws of Congress. The Fed- 
eral courts have decided that our naturalization laws do not 
apply to Mongolians, Japan*ese and Burmese. The right 
to become naturalized is entirely under the control of Con- 
gress, and in order to make certain by statutory enactment 
that the naturalization laws already passed did not apply to 
Chinese, Congress, by the act of May 6, 1882, provided that 
thereafter no State court or court of the United States 
should admit Chinese to citizenship; and the Convention 
between China and the United States of 1894, while guar- 
anteeing to the Chinese, either permanently or temporarily 
residing in the United States, all the rights granted by us to 
citizens of the most favored nations, expressly and in terms 
excludes the right to become naturalized citizens. 

However, our idea that the Japanese and Chinese are 
anxious for American citizenship is grossly exaggerated. 
The Japanese are a most home-loving and loyal people, at- 
tached to their native land and to the Mikado, who is to them 
a deity. Only in very rare cases do they give up allegiance 
to their native land. As for the Chinese — listen to the pen- 
alty prescribed by their code of laws for expatriation : "All 
persons renouncing their allegiance and country shall be 
beheaded, and in the punishment therefor no distinction 



16 

shall be made between principals and accessories. If the 
crime is contrived but not executed, the principal shall be 
strangled. Tlie property of all such criminals shall be con- 
fiscated, and their wives and children distributed as slaves 
to the great officers of the State. The parents, grand- 
parents, brothers and grandchildren shall be banished." 
A condign punishment this for the Celestial, the cardinal 
doctrine of whose religion is ancestral worship. 

Undoubtedly all persons born within the territory 
of the United States, after such territory is acquired, 
and subject to the jurisdiction tliereof, will, under the 14th 
Amendment to the Constitution, be citizens by reason of their 
birth. This will include the Children of Spaniards, half- 
whites, Chinese and Japanese alike, and of the Filipinos and 
Hawaiians, who, under the territorial laws to be established, 
will be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and 
who shall be born after the treaty of cession has been rati- 
fied and become a law. It would not include children of 
the native savage tribes, if by the treaty of cession, these are 
treated as alien tribes and not subject to the jurisdiction of 
the United States. In the Organic Acts of the new terri- 
tories or colonies, when formed, the political status of the 
inhabitants of each of these territories will be fixed. It may 
be fairly predicted that the position of the inhabitant, 
except the uncivilized native tribes, in the new territories, 
as in the old, will be the same as that of Australian subjects 
under the British Crown. He has "full British citizenship 
as respects his private civil rights, and a share of the 
government of his own Colony, but does not participate in 
the government of the British Empire at large." 

In conclusion, we must realize that territorial annexa- 
tion is now purely a political question. Whether expan- 
sion in the direction now contemplated by this country is 



17 

wise, or not, is a question of policy only — a question worthy 
of tlie careful consideration of every thoughtful citizen and 
lover of the progress of civil liberty — a question having 
many p-os and cons, but which, nevertheless, we may con- 
fidently trust to the sober second thought of the American 
people to answer. Greater problems than this have been met 
and successfully solved. A Nation full of restless activity and 
power, of growing vigor and vitality and energy within, 
which is asserting itself more broadly each year, we must 
and will have a share in tlie great trade of the world at 
large. 

The high-handed action of France in lately depriv- 
ing us entirely of our growing trade in Madagascar; the 
action of the European nations in dividing the entire conti- 
nent of Africa into so-called " Spheres of Influence," within 
which the influential nation has its own peculiar advantages 
of trade; the seizure of Manchuria by Russia, and of the 
eastern portion of China by Germany ; the evidentprepara- 
tion for the partition of China by the great Powers of Europe, 
all of these outside forces are driving us to a point where a 
foreign policy must of necessity be formed. Whether it 
shall be to our greatest advantage to unite with England, 
and insist with her on the " Open Door " polic}' of trade 
which she has always so strenuously advocated, or whether 
it will be wiser to establish achain of naval stations around 
the world and maintain a large and effective navy in con- 
nection therewith, to enable us to insist on trade privileges 
equal to those granted to the most favored nation, or wiietlier 
it shall be to our interest to establish a Colonial 
System, and acquire territories in far-off lands, as other 
nations have done and are doing, the American people will 
ultimatelv decide. 



18 

In working out this problem, let us not be moved 
by those faint-hearted, hesitating statesmen who doubt 
our powers, under the Federal Constitution and under our 
republican institutions, to take whichsoever policy our 
needs may demand. 

Although the Constitutions of all the thirteen original 
States, except Massachusetts, have been completely changed 
in the past one hundred years, the Constitution of the 
United States remains practically unchanged to-day. That 
was not an unmerited eulogy by Mr. Gladstone when he 
pronounced the American Constitution "the most wonder- 
ful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and 
purpose of man." Through all the varying needs of this 
People it has remained steadfast, but with inherent elasticity, 
enabling it to conform to the requirements of the growth of 
the Nation. As in the past, so in the future, it will be found 
a bond holding the people together, not in an unyielding 
grasp, dwarfing their growth and restraining their energies, 
but containing within itself power of accommodation to 
their every need and necessity. If territorial expansion 
shall be determined by the American people to be necessary 
for the preservation of its interests and for the growth of 
the nation and of civil libert}^, it will be found that such 
growth and expansion is entirely possible under the Federal 
Constitution as it exists to-day. 



IflB ( 

w W13 744 839 7 ^ \ 



\ 



